Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
 All Forums
 The Roman World
 Status Correction Please?

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!

Format Mode:
Format: BoldItalicizedUnderlineStrikethrough Align LeftCenteredAlign Right Horizontal Rule Insert HyperlinkInsert EmailInsert Image Insert CodeInsert QuoteInsert List

* Forum Code is ON
Smile [:)] Big Smile [:D] Cool [8D] Blush [:I]
Tongue [:P] Evil [):] Wink [;)] Clown [:o)]
Black Eye [B)] Eight Ball [8] Frown [:(] Shy [8)]
Shocked [:0] Angry [:(!] Dead [xx(] Sleepy [|)]
Kisses [:X] Approve [^] Disapprove [V] Question [?]

Check here to subscribe to this topic.

T O P I C    R E V I E W
mikedag Posted - 25 Jul 2006 : 17:57:18
Greetings from Rhode Island. Glad to be admitted to this group. Am in the process of recinding and recoking all known contracts that i have made with the federal government over the span of thirty years. All,I presume were made under false pretenses. have a ways to go but I feel this is s good step in declaring my true Citizenship; one that only my Creator can grant. Has anyone else on this forum decided to take this approach called status correction?
9   L A T E S T    R E P L I E S    (Newest First)
Jay Scott Posted - 21 Dec 2010 : 11:03:15
And who's PERSON is it? Yers? If not yers, then why "correct status" of someTHING that's not yers?

"Until We present to the Court satisfactory evidence..." What better way than firsthand testimony in open court? More than words, let actions bear testimony. Is that better than paperwork? Can "the court" see "your" words, "your" paperwork? Or can "the court" only see the PERSON's paperwork?

" Designated Trustee..." If you claimed that, would you have to prove it? Can you prove it? Or is it better to point out there's a mistake and let the first one to make a claim prove you are the PERSON liable for the charges?

"(a) no standing in the Court..." Is that a blessing? Why stand in the "Court?" If one stands in the "Court" would not one be expected to submit to the rules and jurisdiction of the "Court?" Does "no one can serve two Masters" apply?

"Fortunately, proper language and terminology is easy to learn in order to establish to the Court the true nature of the relationship." Examples please.

If one does not claim someone else's property (PERSON) and therefore one is not taxed for the privilege do you suppose someone else will "correct status" of the unprofitable servant (PERSON). Don't know.

Merely thoughts that come to mind! Thanks, Man! Love it!

Jay Scott.
I. Scriabin Posted - 18 Dec 2010 : 00:53:21
Lewis, the Court wasn't proceeding against "You"
the Man; the Court couldn't "see" You. It was
proceeding against the "PERSON" over which it had

Until We present to the Court satisfactory evidence
of "Who" we are and "How" we relate to the "subject
PERSON" (with its NAME AND NUMBER) as Designated Trustee
there is no favorable resolution.

The Man who claims no relationship to the CREATED SOCIAL
(a) no standing in the Court, or
(b) GENERAL PARTNERSHIP presumed which makes one fully

It would be dependent upon how the Man prepared documentation
and the language used to communicate with the Court.

Fortunately, proper language and terminology is easy to learn
in order to establish to the Court the true nature of the

Lewish Posted - 15 Apr 2007 : 14:31:52
Greetings Greg,

Would be more than happy to post case cites. However, you will have to wait until I can get a domicle re-established and can dig thru all the notes I have. May take a while. Please be patient.

Sovereignty for the "Man" exists only under the State. That is all you need.

The courts do not currently have jurisdiction over a "Man", except by contract. They always presume you consent to contract with them. That was and is one of the first things I establish when entering their forum. "Nothing I have said or done, or may say or do, Nothing shall be deemed to be consent to contract with this Instrumentality." Now, make them prove jurisdiction. They can't. That is why the "judge" (the pretender in the black dress) had me removed from the courtroom again on this go round. He knew that if he answered my jurisdiction challenge that the case would be all over. So, he had the Marshalls forcefully remove me and then proceeded to continue without me. Two violations of their own rules right there.

A Man on the Land on Washington as a Citizen thereon.
Greg Posted - 15 Apr 2007 : 12:26:00
Greeting and Blessings group, Brother Lewis,
I would love to see one of those cases. Can you post the info enabling us to locate them?
Was this Country, the united States of America, not founded on sovereign men with no subjects?
If one obtains "sovereignty" how then would the corp. have the jurisdiction to move against such a man?

Good to have you back Lewis, I sent you a PM.

God Love and Blessings upon his ecclesia,
a humble servant,
Lewish Posted - 14 Apr 2007 : 21:22:11

OK, a few thoughts. Do you really want to be sovereign? If you become sovereign, where are you going to live? I can assure you, and give you numerous federal courts cases to support it, that if you achieve sovereignty the UNITED STATES ( the fictitous entity, a corporation acting as if it is the government ) will have you remove from this Land.

As to cancelling your contracts, that is very easy. Do an Affidavit in which you rescind your signature on any and all documents of the UNITED STATES, that you have ever signed in your entire life. Record it in the county, put it on a UCC-1, if you so choose, and then serve notice on all the appropriate government agencies. They have 30 days to respond in dispute, give them an extra 5 days for mail service, and then record an Affidavit of Non-response. You do all the service thru a Notary Public, with a Certificat of Service.

Their non-response settles the matter forever in the Law.

Hope this helps.

A Man on the Land on Washington as a Citizen thereon.
krone Posted - 15 Aug 2006 : 10:30:30

What is "status correction" and how does it align with Mercier's approach?
mikedag Posted - 13 Aug 2006 : 01:32:22
Originally posted by krone


Have you read "Invisible Contracts" by George Mercier? I believe he is very authoratative in this area and I am currently pursuing his methods. I am interested in knowing who else is familiar with him.


krone Posted - 08 Aug 2006 : 08:45:29

Have you read "Invisible Contracts" by George Mercier? I believe he is very authoratative in this area and I am currently pursuing his methods. I am interested in knowing who else is familiar with him.

Greg Posted - 02 Aug 2006 : 12:22:42
Greetings, salutations, Peace, and blessings unto his ecclesia.
I have been studying this topic for a while (sovereign) and have came to the conclusion that at no point and time in history have I found evidence that it is, or can be, given or granted. I believe it to be a condition of the thing its self. If the maxim of law and nature stands that one controls that which one creates and one has given sovereignty to another...then has the giver not been also the creator of that sovereignty? and if so, then is the one who has been given sovereignty not still subject to the grantor thereof? Which is not sovereignty, but would be merely a vail or illusion thereof...right? Sovereignty can only be taken and secured to ones self by their own will. Which creates another our will to be that of our own? I say surely not. It is the will of our Father that is to be sought, am I right? As a bondservant (which we are if we confess to having a Lord just by the definition of the same) then our will is not our own, so how can we choose to be "sovereign"? I think more correctly is we are foreign to the World, " be in the world, but not of the world". As I perceive it, the problems arise when our brothers and sisters attempt to obtain worldly things and retain them because of their foreign standing. But this is not what your foreign status confers upon you, the treasures and rewards you are given are in heaven and not worldly. We did not create the "money", fiat as it may be, and neither did our Lord. So we have no rights as a foreigner pertaining to the same, but merely the conditional uses thereof. So if you choose to use it (it is a choice, most just don’t like the alternative), know that it comes with conditions of its usage by its creator, which is generally they want most of it back "...give unto Caesar, that which is Caesars". Now you have a right to land, gold, silver, minerals (pure), animals, and anything else created by the one whom created you. Even as worldly as the gov. is they still recognize this as a 501 c 3 doesn't pay "property (usage) taxes", nor is gold or silver taxed until you move it into commerce, and the same being true with animals. I know the 501 c 3 raised an eyebrow, and I'm not advocating the same...just merely pointing out that even they recognize God owns the land and they have no standing to excise a tax for the use thereof unless your actions warrant the same.
Now as for the vessel in commerce, straw man, all caps name, whatever you choose to call it. The same has been created by Caesar, so the same adage applies "that which one creates, one controls". I've seen a plethora of attempts and methods to reclaim this thing as ones own, all of which are faulty and proven to be the same by their eventual failure. It is because it is not yours, and without consideration given, and the same being never will be. You can file paper work until your blue in the face, but until you can show consideration given... and accepted or equity therein IT IS NOT YOURS! It's impractical to show equity therein because the whole purpose of the "vessel" is for commerce, so even if you could show so much as an implied interest in the thing, the act of doing so would only prove you were tied (contracted/covenanted) to commerce and put you back under the control of the creator thereof. If they would accept payment/consideration for it that you may have a higher standing in the thing than them, of which they will not (that I'm aware of), then how could you accept what is essentially a vessel/tool in commerce as your own and in doing the same not have it reflect a submission to being a party to commerce? I don't see how you could.
The answer lies in leaving the thing alone. Don't touch it, don't use it, don't answer to it, and don’t talk about it, just walk away from it. You are only tied to it by your consent, this much I know to be fact! If one is so inclined, and feels it imperative that Caesar recognize you are not his, then you must prove the same in accord with how Caesar has said he will recognize it. The same lies in USC 8 dealing with foreign status. I see how the tie has been made as to why it would seem rational to use the UCC, and to some extent agree. But I am not Caesar, and I can assure you he does not recognize the attempts to use UCC, admiralty, maritime, or any other set of guidelines for jurisdictions outside of the ones he has specifically ordained to be used in whatever venue (of his) you may find yourself in. The small victories that have been gained by doing this are generally because of one of two reasons, or a compilation of both, either 1) They are confused and not quit sure what it is that you're doing, and being a typical gov employee will refrain from accepting any type of liability and therefore will dismiss the case and/or 2) They see the flaw in your argument, but would have to show you something they don't want you to see in order to defeat it, and concluding it's not worth it, they dismiss the case. To the wiser ones you run across you will see/hear this statement "the argument is inherently flawed", and they are right. May divine wisdom be upon his people in their search for what is righteous! Glory is to our Lord, as I am but his humble servant, Greg.

P.S. If I hear Busch say the word democracy one more time I think I’ll…….

“…democracy in its truest form is a lynching mob.”

(Note to forum admn: If this would be better posted elsewhere please feel free, or let me know and I will.)

ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY © 2003-2020 Ecclesiastic Commonwealth Community Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.12 seconds. Snitz Forums 2000